Saf-T-Hammer = Nothing New = Same Old S&W

[C.R.Sam]

My children are middle aged. I haven't bought a gun for nearly five hours. I probably won't buy any more guns this month.

Saf-T-Hammer was unsuccessfully tryin to make a buck off of the hysteria generated by the Brady Bunch. Ie, tryin to market gun locks, trigger locks etc. They had no assets, no recievables, no cash on hand, nearly no stock value etc when they cut the deal with Tompkins for what was left of Smith n Wesson. They got an angel to put up the bucks so they could buy SnW on spec at a deep discount. One loser company buys another loser company. Somebody stands to profit by the deal but it is not clear who that is yet.

SnW was losing money heavily in spite of their job shop contracts to furnish manufactured goods to other manufacturers. Seems that they still are.

Aside from the contracts in which they could have forced ALL gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers to abide by the onerous conditions of the agreements: There is the matter of their product quality. I have looked at quite a few of their recent offerings and discounting Performance Center products....all have had fit, finish and function problems that made the old Bangor Punta guns look, feel and shoot like custom jewells in comparison.

Therefore I think I have two good reasons to not buy new SnW products.

One.....the agreements....which new management has publicly stated they will honor.

Two.....Sadly, it seems that one would get more gun for their buck with a Taurus, Charter Arms, Ruger or whatever.

If you can't read and understand the agreements, which have the force of law, don't trash those who chose to fight for their rights as gunowners by boycotting SnW.

Sam......ex SnW dealer and ex entheusiastic supporter.

 

[JayCee]

Seems to me y'all would accomplish more by boycotting the government 'stead of Smith & Wesson...

 

[bastiat]

The problem is that the government can use force, S&W can't. Any act of boycotting the government will only result in force being used against us. Boycotting S&W will cause two good things: First, S&W will be hurt by it, and second, other gun makers will know not to do the same.

If I boycotted the government, I'd end up in jail, and everything I own will probably be seized. While that might be noble, it won't accomplish anything at this point. The political and social climate isn't open to people who try to work outside the system. A couple hundred years ago, going to jail on principal might have affected some changes. Now, it just gets you labeled a kook.

So the only real way to affect changes is to use political and economic muscle as a group. That's what we're doing with S&W, and that's what we can do as part of the NRA/GOA and our political parties.

 

[JayCee]

I guess that's kinda my point. No individual or company, with the possible exception of a Microsoft or GE, is going to be able to go up against the federal government in court and come out ahead. They just don't have the resources. Our system of civil justice provides that each party pays its own costs in a civil action. Therefore, even if S&W had gone the distance with the government, they could very easily have spent themselves into bankruptcy and still lost the case. S&W is a business, and its management must do whatever is necessary to stay in business; this is a duty management owes to its shareholders. Sad to say, the government is powerful enough to file suit against any firearms manufacturer or (even more scary!) ammunition manufacturer, and force them into insolvency through the legal process. That's why my ire is directed toward the government, not S&W. If the US had a variant of the English system where the loser pays costs, including attorney's fees, S&W might have had a chance to go the distance. But in our current system, the cards were stacked against them at the outset.

JayCee

 

[bastiat]

Correct, but those same cards were stacked against every other gun maker, but they decided to pool together and fight the lawsuits. S&W, which was just another brand name to their corporate parents, chose to knuckle under.

Reminds me of something churchill once said: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. "

 

[Mike Irwin]

We DID boycott the Government, JC, at least the government that created this agreement.

The Clinton Administration didn't become the Gore Administration, and law-abiding gun owners who were concerned about their rights had a large hand in that.

One of the results of the election is that the Democrats are no longer putting the kind of emphasis on gun control that they did. They recognize that it cost them, and cost them BIG in states like West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc., all states where there are a lot of politically active Democrats ----- who own guns.

That half of the problem was taken care of, at least for a period of time.

Now it's time to finish the second half of the problem -- the Smith & Wesson half.

Oh, and people do fight the Federal government every day. And a lot of them end up winning.

 

[JayCee]

At the risk of endlessly extending this thread, I stand by my earlier point: there isn't a firearms manufacturer on this planet that has enough resources to stand up to the federal, state and municipal governments in a lengthy court battle. They just flat don't make enough money selling guns, and money is what keeps you in court. If the government decides, maybe not now, but sometime in the future to again go after a gun manufacturer, what are we going to do then? Threaten to run it out of business if they "cave in" to the financial pressures attendant with a lengthy court battle. What a prospect! If they settle the case, their customers will try to put them out of business. If they fight the battle and lose, they're gone. If they fight and win, their lawyers' fees will likely have put such a dent in their earnings that they might not recover. Why would anyone even want to be in a business like that?

If you really want to do something for the cause, pressure your elected representatives to pass legislation prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Some states have outlawed the filing of suits that purport to pin liability on gun manufacturers stemming from misuse of their products. My point is that boycotting S&W is extraordinarily counterproductive. It may be satisfying in the short term, but in the long term, when other gun producers take a look at the sad saga of Smith & Wesson's treatment by their "loyal" customers, don't be surprised if they decide to voluntarily get out of the gun business. Then they won't have to deal with adverse media attention, hounding by the government, and boycotts by irate customers! Where will that leave us then?

JMHO, JayCee

 

[bastiat]

Sigh. Every point by the S&W sympathizers seems to revolve around two points:

1. We can't let a gun maker go out of business
2. Our boycott of S&W is just making the anti's happy.

When asked, I've NEVER seen the lickspittles actually DEFEND the onerous points of the agreement. I'll ask again: Is a de facto ban on the sale of ALL high-cap magazines, pre or post ban, a good thing? Do you agree with it? How about that ban on the sale of government defined 'assault weapons'? Like that one as well?

I'm sure this request will be answered with the same platitudes as before. But I'd really appreciate even the effort being made. Because "we can't let a gun maker go under" is beginning to sound a lot like "Do it for the children".

 

[Mike Irwin]

So, Jay, if I get your line of reasoning, it roughly follows two trains...

1. You can't fight big brother.

2. Bow down and accept the inevitable.

Uh huh. Now THAT'S a winning strategy.

 

[AR-10]

I guess there is nothing good to be said about it.

Seems that most of the people scoffing at the boycott have never read it, because I have yet to see any of them single out any one requirement for debate. That is sad.

Maybe they figure if they don't look at it,.....it will go away.

 

[Silver Bullet]

JayCee: I think you made some really good points. You made by far the best
case against the boycott of any message I've seen. I had to think for a long
time to see what I think are holes.

You say that the manufacturer has three possible outcomes of legal action
against them by the government, all of them ruinous. Given that, it seems
to me they should have considered "I'm screwed regardless, I might as well
go down fighting, go down doing the honorable thing." You can argue
responsibility to the stockholders, and that's a good argument, but there's
also a responsibility to the citizens of this country. For example,
General Motors doesn't develop a side business of smuggling drugs into this
country inside cars manufactured in other countries just because it might
increase the bottom line for the stockholders. "But those are illegal
activities!" ? So is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms by the
government. Some book publishers will refrain from publishing certain books
because of subject matter, such as how to make pipe bombs. "But they
refrain to avoid public outcry, not because of any civic responsibility!" ?
S&W is now reaping the consequences of public outcry.

I agree that working to elect pro-gun representatives is the best thing we
can do, more important than the boycott, provided we can get pro-gun reps
elected. Sometimes we can, sometimes we can't.

The other manufacturers, when they look at "the sad saga", will note not
just the customer disloyalty but the reason for the disloyalty, and that's
one of the purposes of the boycott: to serve notice that certain behavior
in the gun industry is unacceptable. Will all of the companies get out of
the gun business ? I don't see why, for lots of them guns are their only
business, and if some leave the others will pick up their business and have
a better bottom line.

A more important reason for the boycott is to snuff out the Agreement before
it takes hold. If the dealers had gone along with this agreement, every
manufacturer who wanted to sell guns in this country through a dealer would
have been bound by the terms of the agreement between S&W and the
government, including government oversight into future designs and
restrictions on what could or could not be sold. If you haven't read the
agreement, you really have no clue to the size of the calamity that was
averted. It's going to be along time (if ever) before the mainstream media
reports this story in the manner it deserves, but the gun dealers of America
took a stance every bit as important to upholding American ideals as the
Boston Tea Party.

Sure, driving S&W out of business is a bad decision, but it's not the wrong
decision. Sometimes our choices are not between good and bad, but between bad and worse. I keep reading where HCI is going to have a good laugh when an American gun company is driven out of business. Yep, that bad, I don't like it one bit. "People are losing their jobs." I hate that, too. But, as bad as all of that is, letting the government take control of the gun industry via the choke hold the Agreement would give the government over the manufacturers, the dealers, and eventually the customers, is even worse. Once S&W signed, we were left without any good choices.

 

[JayCee]

Gentlemen, with all due respect, you are all forgetting one thing: any agreement can be modified or even rescinded by the parties. The federal government and several state and local governments are parties to the agreement. We, the people, have a voice in these governments. We, the people, have a right to demand that our tax dollars not be spent in support of actions that limit our rights under the Constitution. We, the people, have a right to demand of our government that the agreement with Smith & Wesson be rescinded and the underlying lawsuit dismissed. We, the people, have a right to demand that the government desist from future actions against firearm and ammunition manufacturers in derogation of our Second Amendment rights. Why has none of this happened? Part of the reason may be that the folks who are most upset by the agreement are directing their anger toward the wrong party. The government brought the suit, and the government can dismiss it. All it takes is enough pressure from the likes of you and me.

It’s easy to blame Smith & Wesson. Boycotting them will have a tangible effect, and you can kick back and say smugly, “we sure showed them!” But how does this solve the underlying problem? What are you going to do the next time the government runs out and does the same thing? Eventually, you’ll run out of companies to boycott.

The whole concept of pinning liability on a gun manufacturer for the actions of individuals who misuse its products is JUST PLAIN WRONG! Boycotting Smith & Wesson does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to rectify this abuse of the judicial process. The only solution is for you and me to make it crystal clear to our elected officials that we won’t tolerate our tax dollars being used for these purposes. I’m trying to do my small part. It’s up to you to do yours.

I rest my case.

JayCee

 

[Silver Bullet]

1) Did you read the agreement ?
2) Did you buy stock in Saf-T-Hammer since they acquired S&W ?

Don't take offense, it's just good to know where everybody is coming from.

How long do you think it would take for the agreement to be rescinded by pressuring the elected officials ? Can you point to a specific elected official and say, "Yes, that's the guy; he can change everything." I'm not saying there isn't such an individual, just that I don't know who in the bowels of federal government that person would be, possibly an appointed official. I would gladly make my voice heard to that official if I knew who he was. Maybe the Prez ? Maybe the AG ? I don't know if even they can do anything, but if they can I think they might.

If you're talking about my local Congressman and Senator, then yes, you're right, I haven't contacted them about this, and maybe I should. It's just that I think they're sufficiently far removed from the agreement makers that it will be a long time before anything happens, if at all. And what about Californians? Do you think it will be a productive use of their time to contact Boxer and Feinstein ? The best Californians will be able to do is work to elect somebody who has read the Constitution. How long will that take ?

In the meantime, it's important to keep the agreement snuffed out. In the two or three or fifteen years it takes to do anything with the federal bureaucracy, all of the manufacturers might have been forced to kowtow to S&W's agreement, and once they're all on board I think it will be much more difficult to get them off the train. How much progress have we made with S&W so far ?

I would agree that we should do more to pressure the federal government. I just think it's a mistake to let up on S&W until somebody rescinds the agreement.

 

[JayCee]

Absolutely no offense taken. To answer your questions, yes, I have read the agreement, and no, I don’t own stock in Saf-T-Hammer, which I believe is a privately held concern. Quite frankly, my sense of the agreement is that it is a compromise allowing both parties to claim a modicum of victory. It gets S&W out of court, and it allows the government to boast that it’s doing something about gun crime. I don’t see it as the threat to freedom that others apparently do.

As to your point about it taking too long to make changes, I agree. Nothing can be changed overnight. But remember that we no longer live in a time when the possession and lawful use of firearms is considered virtuous. Now, many people question the continued validity of the right to keep and bear arms. Until the end of the last century, no one had ever heard of an “anti-gun” legislator. Now the likes of Boxer and Feinstein are more commonplace. Until recently, no one really questioned the meaning of the Second Amendment. Now, HCI and others are suggesting that the Second Amendment only allows citizens to keep and bear arms if they are affiliated with an organized militia, such as the National Guard. These and other reasons complicate the whole issue. I just don’t think we can afford to let ourselves be sidetracked by getting crosswise with folks who are on our side. Any victory we can claim by forcing Smith & Wesson out of business will be a Pyrrhic victory, which we will ultimately deeply regret. You may mark my words on this.

 

[Quartus]

any agreement can be modified or even rescinded by the parties

Yep. That's just fine. When the agreement is dead, almost all of us who support the boycott will be having a Smith buying day. There are a few who feel that S&W must die, even if they kill the agreement. I understand their point, but I think the majority respectfully disagree. When the agreement is dead and buried deep most of us will buy again.


I used an illustration in another thread. I invite your atttention to it:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77234&perpage=25&pagenumber=8

 

[Silver Bullet]

it allows the government to boast that it’s doing something about gun crime

"Doing something about gun crime" ? Did we read the same agreement ? It allows the government to dictate through an oversight committee what features must be designed into future and present guns; it dictates that dealers must not sell hi-cap mags, even though they are not illegal; it makes the dealers agree to these terms and dozens of others, and then it requires the dealers to not sell guns by other manufacturers that do not comply with agreement between the government and S&W ! ; part of the profits from S&W must go to funding anti-gun advertising and legislation; and a lot more. Not only is the Oversight Commission made up of 1 manufacturer rep to 4 government reps, but the manufacturer has to fund the Commission.

It looks to me like this gives the government a stranglehold on the industry.

I notice the government parties to the agreement are the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I guess that would be a good starting point for pressure on the Fed. I'll see if I can locate on the web whose in charge there.

By the way, the trade symbol for Saf-T-Hammer is SAFH.OB.

 

[AR-10]

Jaycee.

I do not see how you can rationalize that Smith and Wesson is "on our side". The fact that they manufacture guns does not make them on our side.

They signed a contract, the details of which have been discussed at great length by people who are mad as hell about it. The odd thing is, no one who takes your position in this debate ever wants to discuss the details. They just brush aside the finer details and moan about putting "one of our own" out of business.

I don't think any firearm manufacturer that thinks so little of free enterprise or their own customers deserves my money. If the new owners don't like the agreement, let them say so and show that they are at least trying to do something about it. Why should I spend two seconds of my time pressuring the federal government to rescind an agreement if the obligated party does not object to it?

If you want to discuss the consquences of life under the agreement, I'm all ears. You have read it, but do you comprehend what the requirements add up to? Silver Bullet is right on the money when he says stranglehold.

If you agree, why would you support a company that is willing to thumb their nose at free enterprise and help fund people trying to tear the firearm industry apart? If you don't agree, than take a half dozen items from the agreement and show me why they are not going to negatively affect us and the gun industry in general.

 

[SamC]

It gets S&W out of court, .... I don't see it as the threat to freedom as others apparently do.

Well, this IS a threat to everyone's individual freedom. I could care less if S&W gets out of court, it would get out of court at MY/YOUR expense! They sold us all out to protect themsleves and to ensure a "captive market" for their products. S&W put themselves above all of the gun industry and above all of the gun owners of the country in order to get a bigger market share for themselves. They sure as He** didn't worry about anyone else when they signed on with Slick Willy and the other gun grabbers. I sure as He** won't worry about them, especially if they go out of business for their selfish, anti-gun behavior. S&W must die! SamC

 

[JayCee]

Okay, let's discuss some details. Taking each of Silver Bullet's points in turn:

First, Section III.A.2 states in part that the Oversight Committee will “review the findings of ATF or the proofing entity that will oversee the design and safety requirements of Part I of this Agreement”. Nowhere in the agreement does it state that the ATF, the proofing entity or the Oversight Commission has any input into the design and safety requirements. These requirements are already in the agreement. The word “dictate” does not appear, as you suggest.

Secondly, the agreement doesn’t dictate to dealers that they can’t sell high capacity magazines. The word “dictate” isn’t anywhere in evidence. Dealers are not bound by this agreement, since they’re not parties to it. What it actually provides is that the manufacturer party, i.e., Smith & Wesson, agrees not to do business with dealers that don’t agree in writing not to sell high-capacity magazines. The dealers are free to continue to do business with Smith & Wesson under those terms, or they can refuse to do so and will presumably lose their authorized dealer status. It’s up to them to choose.

Thirdly, authorized dealers are only supposed to sell firearms that “comport with the design criteria of this Agreement.” It doesn’t state that such firearms must comport with all the design criteria. Presumably, comporting with one or two of the design standards would be sufficient to satisfy this requirement.

Fourthly, the agreement requires that the manufacturer party is to set up a trust fund to inform the public about “the risk of firearms misuse, safe storage, and the need to dispose of firearms responsibly.” I don’t look upon this statement as a mandate for Smith & Wesson to fund anti-gun advertising and legislation. Simple public safety announcements would suffice.

Fifthly, the agreement states that the cost of the commission will be funded “by the parties to the agreement”. It further states that the manufacturer parties’ contributions will be limited to $25,000 annually. What Silver Bullet interpreted as a requirement that the manufacturer party fund the agreement is actually a limitation of the amount of funding to be provided by the manufacturer party.

I’m sorry to be pedantic about this, but legal documents must be read precisely. I’m not defending the agreement; I’m merely pointing out that you need to read it very closely before drawing conclusions. Don't let your thinking be clouded by what everyone else thinks.

And finally, there seems to be a general consensus that Smith & Wesson is somehow violating our Second Amendment rights. I urge you to read and study some of the commentaries on the Second Amendment. You will find that it applies only to the federal government. It is argued that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the protections of the Second Amendment to the state governments, but this hasn't been finally decided by the US Supreme Court.

Regards,
JayCee

 

[Quartus]

Hair splitting sophistries don't preserve freedom.